This paper discusses two arguments raised against Hornstein's (Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96, 1999, Move! A minimalist theory of construal, Blackwell, 2001) Movement Theory of Control (MTC): Landau's (Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498, 2003) contrast between raising and passivized subject control predicates and Culicover and Jackendoff's (Linguistic Inquiry 30: 483–512, 2001) contrast between control and raising within nominals. I show that rather than counter-arguments, the data they present can actually be analyzed as arguments in favor of the MTC. More specifically, I argue that the puzzling contrasts discussed by these authors can be adequately accounted for within the MTC if minimality computations regarding A-movement are relativized in terms of φ - or θ -relations.
Contents
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedRelativizing Minimality for A-movement: φ- and θ-relationsLicensedJune 18, 2010
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedPredicative degree constructions in SpanishLicensedJune 18, 2010
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedSilent interactions: Spanish TP-ellipsis and the theory of island repairLicensedJune 18, 2010
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedA contrastive study of Catalan and Spanish declarative intonation: Focus on Majorcan dialectsLicensedJune 18, 2010
Issues in this Volume
Issues in this Volume